CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to force the state of California, as represented by the Governor and Attorney General of the state, to act as defendants in the federal Proposition 8 lawsuit, Perry v. Schwarzenegger.


As I blogged about earlier in the week, the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General on Monday to attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected their argument. Now the state's highest court has also rejected their legal argument.

The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.

Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.

"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."

[...]

Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.

"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.

The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.

The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.

If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing,  Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.

All people interested in marriage equality will be watching the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguments very closely in this case. It would sort of be unfortunate f the case was decided on a relatively abstruse legal point like standing, instead of the very importantfederal constitutional issues raised in Walker's District Court opinion of August 4.